Re: [sca-policy] ISSUE-104: Clarify meaning of 'does not have tosupport intents' in Conformance section

[ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Mike, one comment inline
All the best, Ashok


Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> In my opinion, it should be valid for a user to write a composite 
> using any of the intents listed in the Policy specification.
>
> It is also valid for a given runtime not to have policy support for 
> any of the intents.  eg there is no support for signing
> messages so that integrity intent cannot be honoured.
>
> In this case, the Composite documents are VALID - they cannot be 
> rejected because they contain the intents.
> However, the runtime can raise an error and refuse to deploy/run the 
> composite because the intents cannot be
[AM] Currently, the runtime MUST raise an error.  Are you suggesting 
this be changed to MAY ?
> honoured.  The same would be true if a PolicySet were contributed and 
> used, but the set of policies in the
> policySet could not be provided either by the container or by the 
> binding implementations available with that
> runtime.
>
> In my opinion, what needs changing here is the line in section 11 
> (Conformance) - it needs to be expanded to say
> much as I have said here.
>
>
> Yours,  Mike.
>
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
> Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
>
>
> From: 	David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>
> To: 	sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
> Date: 	12/08/2009 15:39
> Subject: 	[sca-policy] ISSUE-104: Clarify meaning of 'does not have to 
> support intents' in Conformance section
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/POLICY-104_
>
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
>
> Inactive hide details for David Booz---08/12/2009 09:59:05 
> AM---TARGET: SCA Policy FW spec CD02/PR01 DESCRIPTION:David 
> Booz---08/12/2009 09:59:05 AM---TARGET: SCA Policy FW spec CD02/PR01 
> DESCRIPTION:
>
> From: 	
> David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS
>
> To: 	
> sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Date: 	
> 08/12/2009 09:59 AM
>
> Subject: 	
> [sca-policy] NEW ISSUE: Clarify meaning of 'does not have to support 
> intents' in Conformance section
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> TARGET: SCA Policy FW spec CD02/PR01
>
> DESCRIPTION:
> Section 11 Conformance states (line 2346):
> 'The implementation does not have to support any intents listed in 
> this specification, and MAY reject SCDL documents that contain them.'
>
> Also consider that POL30024 says the following:
> 'An SCA Runtime MUST include in the Domain the set of intent 
> definitions contained in the Policy_Intents_Definitions.xml described 
> in the appendix "Intent Definitions" of the SCA Policy specification.'
>
> What does it mean to support an intent? Section 11 needs to be clarified.
>
> PROPOSAL:
> None.
>
>
> This completes my outstanding AI: 20090727-01: status=pending: Dave to 
> raise an issue against the Policy spec to deal with the inconsistency 
> relating to the support of intents.
>
> Dave Booz
> STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
> "Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
> Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
> e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>